Low Emissions Development Strategies (LEDS) Modelling Support -

Mozambique

Mozambique Modelling Team

Layout of the presentation1. Background and Context

2. Model selection

3. Replacing fuel-based irrigation pumps by PV-based pumps

4. Replacing SAB agriculture by AFS

5. Scenarios development

6. Results

7. Conclusions and Lessons learned

2

1. Background

• Forest cover: 40 million ha (51% of the country surface)

• Mainly Miombo forests (dry forests)

• Annual deforestation rate: 0.58% (1990-2005)

• 65% Slash and burn Agriculture

• 4% Wood fuel

3

Low Emissions Development Strategies (LEDS) Modelling Support - Mozambique• Establish Mozambique’s project level baseline as

reference for extrapolating future policy & implementation options in the identified priority sectors

• Long term LEDS policy planning analytical framework established targeting emissions abatement & climate resilience trends, socio-economic development tradeoffs and cost-benefit analysis of prioritized options

4

Action 2: Replace slash-and-burn(SAB) agriculture with AgroforestrySystems

5

Action 1: Replace fuel operatedirrigation pumps with Photovoltaicpumps

6

Modelling team constitution• Eduardo Mondlane University (Team Leader)

• Ecological Modelling• Agroforestry• Agricultural Economics• Energy solutions

• INIR – National Institute for Irrigation – irrigation policies andstatistics;

• IIAM – Agricultural Research Institute of Mozambique –Agriculture policies and statistics;

• MITADER – Ministry of Land, Environment and RuralDevelopment – Environment, Climate Change, and SustainableDevelopment Policies

7

2. Model selection

The Long-range Energy Alternatives Planning system

8

3. Replacing Fuel Pumps by Photovoltaic Pumps

9

3. Replacing Fuel Pumps by Photovoltaic Pumps

10

Energy Demand

3. Replacing Fuel Pumps by Photovoltaic Pumps

11

Energy Balance

4. Replacing SAB Agriculture with AFS

12

Data requirements andparameterization

Land use type Description C stock(Mg C/ha)

Profitability(NPV, $/ha)

PL Plantation forests 363 200FL Natural forests 116 150CS Cassava 7 225MZ Maize 5 300GL Grassland 3 50OL Other land uses 1 25

OtherAFS Agroforestry systems 85 170SolarIrr Solar Panels 6 500FuelIrr Fuel Pumps 6 400

13

5. Scenario development

• BAU (Business-as-Usual)• Land use matrix based on the current land conversion

processes

• Replace all fuel-based irrigation pumps byphotovoltaic-based irrigation pumps

• In irrigated agriculture, replace 100% of fuel pumps byphotovoltaic pumps

• Replace 50% of the SAB based maize systems byAFS

• In SAB maize systems, replace 50% by AFS

14

Land use transition matrix (Areax106 ha)

15

6. Results

16

Cost & Benefits relative to Business as Usual

Opportunity cost curve from 2010 to 2014 (emission avoidance from land use systems conversion

17

Opportunity cost curve from 2010 to 2014 (sequestration from land use systems conversion)

18

Scenario analysis

19

Net emissions

20

Cluster analysis between profitability and carbon stock amongst land cover

21

Cluster analysis between carbon stock and employment amongst land cover

22

Cluster analysis between profitability and employment amongst land cover

23

7. Conclusions and Lessons Leaned• We can´t say much in terms of numerical results, but tendencies,

and data requirements• There is a great deal of opportunities to reduce CO2 emissions, and

increase CO2 sequestrations from the Agricultural sector• Agroforestry options in place of SAB agriculture provide not only

increased sequestration, but also increased economic returns andmore job opportunities

• Use of Photovoltaic water pumps for irrigation, apart from reducingemissions, provides increased economic returns

• The shortage of information was the most limiting factor, revealingweaknesses in research and national GHG inventories

• A team of national modellers has been trained and made availableto assist in processes such as GHG inventories (they know the data needs and the missing information) and the INDC preparation

24

Thank you!

25